I'm a freelance journalist covering the environment from various angles for publications such as Slate.com, Sunset, and Consumers Digest. Back in 2007, my feature on the potential of algae as a feedstock for biofuel won a gold Folio Eddie. If you'd like to read more green business and environmental health coverage, you can follow me on Twitter or Facebook, or circle me on Google+

As Report Reveals Toxic Ingredients in Baby Shampoo, Johnson & Johnson Goes Public with Plans to Clean Up Products

**See below for a recent update.** Less than a month after Johnson & Johnson ranked as the most trusted brand in America in Forbes‘ survey comes a report that could give consumers pause, calling the company out for removing chemicals of concern in its iconic baby shampoo in some countries, but not others. The product currently on shelves in the United States, Canada, and China still contains known carcinogens. In recent years, J&J baby shampoo has become the poster child for the need for chemical reform in the United States; nothing says we need tighter chemical regulation than toxic baby shampoo.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics came out with the news two years ago that Johnson & Johnson’s iconic baby shampoo contained the formaldehyde-releasing preservative quaternium-15, as well as the chemical byproduct 1,4-dioxane. Formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane are known carcinogens. The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission has reported that “the presence of 1,4-dioxane, even as a trace contaminant, is cause for concern,” and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services added formaldehyde to its list of known human carcinogens in June 2011.

In 2009, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, along with 40 other organizations (including American Nurses Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners) sent a letter to J&J outlining their concerns with the company’s products, particularly its baby shampoo. The American Nurses Association and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics have since met several times with Johnson & Johnson executives to discuss the matter. The content of those discussions is confidential, but it seems as though if progress were being made, the organization would not have been sending around its latest report, under embargo, yesterday.

That report states that while J&J has removed the formaldehyde-releasing preservative from its baby shampoo in several countries, in the United States if you want carcinogen-free baby shampoo you need to pay double the price for the company’s “Natural” brand of baby shampoo.

We heard from allies across the globe that the formulations in their countries were different than those in the United States, and these are countries like Sweden, South Africa and Japan where the chemical is also not regulated,” says Lisa Archer, national coordinator for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics at Breast Cancer Fund. “That’s a double standard.”

When Johnson & Johnson caught wind of the report, they contacted the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and got to work on a statement, indicating that they are in the process of phasing the formaldehyde-releasing preservative out of their baby products, worldwide.

The preservative technologies we use are safe and approved by authorities in the European Union and in the United States, as well as in China and India, and we have not seen any evidence of allergy in hundreds of millions of real life uses of these products,” the statement reads. “However, we know that some consumers are concerned about formaldehyde, which is why we offer many products without formaldehyde releasing preservatives, and are phasing out these types of preservatives in our baby products worldwide. We are no longer introducing new baby products that contain these types of preservatives. Over the past few years or so, we already have reduced the number of formulations globally with formaldehyde releaser preservatives by 33% and in the U.S. by over 60%.”

The statement also includes information about the company’s move to rid its products of 1,4-dioxane. “We have reformulated approximately 70% of our baby products with new cleansing formulations that keep trace levels of 1,4 dioxane at below reliably detectable levels,” it says.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics revised the release of their report, indicating Johnson & Johnson’s progress on the matter. Archer says the company’s statement is great news, particularly because J&J has been hesitant to publicly share anything it’s doing about toxics. “There are still questions to be answered, though,” she says. “What’s the timeline for phasing 1,4-dioxane and quaternium-15?”

There are also other, non-baby products in the company’s lines that are of concern, Archer notes, and additional chemicals of concern, beyond formaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane, in the company’s baby products (such as fragrance, which is protected by trade secret laws and could contain any number of potentially dangerous chemicals).

This is great news, and different from what we expected based on past interactions,” Archer says. “But it’s not over. We have to see how quickly they’re willing to make this shift and where.”

Update: On November 16th, Johnson & Johnson announced that it would remove quaternium-15 and other formaldehyde-releasing preservatives from all of its baby products worldwide within two years, and reduce 1,4 dioxane in all of its baby products to less than 4 parts per million (ppm). Long term, the company indicated it will replace the chemical process, called ethoxylation, that results in 1,4 dioxane contamination. Johnson & Johnson also announced that it has removed phthalates from all of its baby products worldwide. The announcement does not cover the company’s non-baby products (e.g. products in the Neutrogena and Aveeno lines).

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Please take the time to read the ingredients and research the ones you can’t pronounce or understand in the products you are putting on your babies. When we were growing up our parents didn’t have access to the information that we do but we have no excuse. Don’t be one of the “sheeple” and fall victim to the billion dollar marketing efforts of so-called “baby” products. Be your child’s best advocate.

You are definitely right because we have removed all of the government regulations and inspectors for the purposes of getting more political donations. I have been using a line of non-toxic products for years, and J&J shampoos were on the formaldehyde list I was given in 1998. Do you suppose in all that time that no one tried to alert the FDA?

Excellent story. The commitment to reformulate is great news for babies, adult consumers and for J&J as a brand, but we need to hear when this will happen, and how/when the company will address other ingredients of concern. I’d really like to see J&J be a true industry leader by committing to full ingredient safety & transparency, and supporting (or at least not actively blocking) the Safe Cosmetics Act, which would empower the FDA to regulate the 50 billion cosmetics industry.

Did you even read the story? J&J already has a toxin free version of baby products, that sell for double the price. They also sell to other countries toxin free versions. Clearly, something other than providing safe products is at the root of this.

Thanks for calling attention to this vital issue! I’m very happy to hear Johnson & Johnson will be acting in the best interest of consumers by phasing out formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, but has a timeline been announced for this process? J&J products on the shelves now still contain those chemicals, and it would be in their best interest to announce a date that the phase-out will be complete.

It is unbelievable J&J would put babies at harm and not remove the products from the shelves. I read activists are calling for a boycott and I hope it harms J&J’s bottom line. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45111139/ns/health-childrens_health/#.TrDG0vQr2so

A lawyer told me once that when it comes to money people will come out of the woodwork. He meant that if you come into money you will gain more friends and relatives looking for a handout. When money is concerned, no matter what the situation, people ignore everything except the amount of money they can get. So it is not hard for me to believe that J&J and any other company only thinks of their profits and cancer causing ingredients must make for a cheaply made product, hence more profits. Also if the FDA allow it then they are within the law. No one they love uses it so they do not care if your child dies or suffers….this is the American way…greedy. The only way you are going to harm J&J is to stop buying their products, including the one they sell under other names.

So, if this is how the most trusted company in America treats our children and our trust, what about the rest of them? The ones we don’t trust so much? Thank you Forbes for bringing this mainstream, apparently the crunchies have known about it for years.

It just makes me sick because if we want safer, healthier products we have to spend at least double for products deemed “natural” as this article states. Why are we continually forced to pay extra for making conscientious decisions when it comes to purchasing safe health and beauty products and products that we consume?

I completely agree. There are safer, affordable alternatives. I shop at a company with all natural, safe, organic products that is actually affordable. It’s an online store but has patented products with the scientific backing. We have to help each other to find safe alternatives without the extra cost. Everyone deserves the chance to be healthier, affordably.

This is just what being a good corporation is all about. The toxins in the levels present in their products are perfectly legal within the countries in which they are sold. Johnson & Johnson has done nothing illegal by exposing babies, their parents, and anyone else using their products to elevated cancer risks.

I know it is hard for you “99%” to understand, but a corporation’s only duty is to make money. If it’s cheaper to sell toxin-riddled or unsafe products, then that’s what the corporation will do until they begin to lose profits and/or the government puts unnecessary regulations into effect… like banning toxins from baby shampoo.

We know that! The problem is the media is controlled in such a way, it takes a very long time to get the word out, as in this case. J&J wants to be the ‘most trusted name’. Well, then you gotta earn it. I really hope, this changes the way people shop. ps. Is it really ‘cheaper’ to make the toxin-free version? Or is it just more profitable to offer a toxin-free version at twice the price?

Were I still teaching analytical chemistry, I would have brought this article to my class as an example of how the public understands the issues around chemical toxicity.

Analytical chemistry has advanced to the level where “detectable” no longer implies any real level of risk. Like your organic garden? We can detect the chlorinated pesticides in the soil that were applied by a farmer in the 1950s. Have you or any previous owner of your home ever added an iron supplement to the lawn? We can detect the arsenic that was present as an impurity in the iron. In fact, in most yards we can detect arsenic in the soil even if iron supplements haven’t been added.

And the most chemically contaminated thing in your house? Its your food. Not because some farmer applied pesticides a month before the crop was harvested but because of the way you prepared it. The act of cooking meats generates large quantities of carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and nitrosamines. Comparing Johnson and Johnsons baby shampoo to the hamburgers your family ate last nite is like comparing Yosemite Park to Love Canal.

I think those who believe that they can avoid exposure to toxic chemicals by buying ‘natural’ products are as much “sheeple” as those who blindly trust manufacturers. Johnson and Johnson does not put formaldehyde in their shampoo. They use a preservative that may cause formaldehyde to form in small amounts. Formaldehyde breaks down in sunlight, so if it is left on the shelf in the open, that tiny amount being formed as a side reaction probably goes away by itself. About 90% of the formaldehyde in the environment comes from natural sources. There will be formaldehyde in your baby as a result of normal metabolic processes – probably at higher levels than might be in the shampoo from the chemical reactions going on in it. Moreover, I could not find any credible source that designated 1,4-dioxane (not to be confused with dioxin) as a ‘known human carcinogen’. People need to stop over-reacting to knowledge of chemical compositions. We are bathed in chemicals everyday, regardless of human industrial activity and many things we take as wonderful, natural things contain carcinogens. Yet, we continue to live.

Do we really “continue to live” when 1 in 3 of us will develop cancer? Just because my microwave didn’t kill me the moment I turned it on doesn’t mean it won’t in 20 years. Yes, we are bathed in chemicals every day, but perhaps we should be taking steps to reduce them from our environment whenever we can so that future generations aren’t dealing with the 1 in 3 cancer ratio. Other countries have banned these chemicals from their products…so why haven’t we? The blame does not fall on J&J…it falls on our government for not regulating the industry properly.

The most trusted brand in America? With their own lobbyists and campaign contributions to Congress? http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000386 Is everyone brain dead? When it’s all about profit, how can trust even be a consideration, except maybe how J&J trusts its lobbyists to get Congress to let them poison our newborns. Or the newborns of other countries. One post gets it: If this is what J&J gets away with, what about the companies we don’t trust? Wake up America. Still think OW is a farce? Go to getmoneyout.com and sign the petition before that’s outlawed too. BTW, thank you Forbes. We need more of this kind of truth exposure.

1) Why in the world does J&J make toxin free baby shampoo for countries where they do not ban the toxic ingredients, and give us in the US and Canada the toxic versions? 2) J&J claims to be working as fast as they can to reformulate. That is a lie. They sell a non toxic version here for twice the price, and overseas. 3) The Campaign For Safe Cosmetics has been silently working with J&J for at least 2 years, and J&J has done nothing to remove these chemicals, until very recently when The Campaign For Safe Cosmetics are quoted on Dr. Mercola’s website as asking for a public ban of J&J baby products, until J&J makes ALL their products safe.

Don’t let people scare you with weasel words. Formaldehyde is naturally found in the human body, as it’s a normal byproduct of digestion and metabolism. Formaldehyde is easily broken down chemically simply because your body is an aqueous environment, and it’s harmlessly discharged every day.

I had no idea that the baby shampoo that I was using on my son contained the formaldehyde-releasing preservative quaternium-15. It says quaternium-15 but I didn’t know what that was. I just threw all of his baby wash away from Johnson and Johnson and I am going to order the children’s shampoo and body wash that I found through a wellness company that truly has all-natural products. I found the company a few months ago and I switched my household cleaners, toothpaste, lotion, vitamins, etc. but I hadn’t even thought to replace Johnson and Johnson. I thought they made safe products. I feel sick even thinking about having used those on my child. I will NEVER buy another Johnson and Johnson baby product.

If anyone would like to know about the all-natural products I have found please contact me at moms4moolah@yahoo.com. I don’t sell them, but you have to be invited into the company to use them. It is an exclusive thing because they don’t advertise. However, I would never keep products this amazing a secret.

i actually use shielo’s hydrate line of shampoos (which are sulfate free) to wash my hair. It doesnt have any of those harmful ingredients. I used to have the worst hair, and now I ALWAYS get complements when using the shielo shampoo. Worth the price. . .

I saw your articles about Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and the toxins it contained. Did you know that a study was published in 2009 about the use of Johnson’s Baby Shampoo as medicine? As a sinus rinse. The study was published w/ no mention on the toxins in Johnson’s Baby Shampoo – if Johnson’s agreed to reformulate for use as a shampoo, externally, there’s no way this item should have been used internally. What are the long-term damages associated w/ using Johnson’s Baby Shampoo as Medicine? Cosmetics aren’t regulated by FDA but Medicine is. How the heck did this happen? I study gets published and now MD’s around the world are publishing papers referencing this one paper from 2009 as “fact”. MD’s around the world are PRESCRIBING Johnson’s Baby Shampoo as medicine based on this 1 publication.

http://www.neilmed.com/articles/babyshampoo.pdf

NeilMed said it had nothing to do w/ the publication of this article yet it’s parked on NeilMed’s website. NeilMed, shortly after this article was published, produced their own product “SINUSURF” for nasal irrigation. NeilMed told me it was “the same product as Johnson’s Baby Shampoo” They also told me it was pulled off the market in Fall of 2011 for several issues. One of which was addiction. The other was loss of smell. And NeilMed & MD’s around the world are still recommends patients use Johnson’s Baby Shampoo as medicine. Disgusting!

How many patients in the US and around the world have been hurt by using toxic Johnson’s Baby Shampoo in their sinus? And will Johnson’s reformulated Baby Shampoo be any safer for internal use/for use as MEDICINE?